OVERHEARD BY NSA AGENTS UNDER RULES MANDATED BY DEMOCRATS
As we all know by now, it is illegal and an impeachable offense for a President to authorize listening in to Americans who are in conversation with al Qaeda terrorists overseas without a warrant if that American citizen (or illegal alien who resides here) happens to be located on US soil when that conversation takes place.
This means, of course, that we would only be able to listen to one side of the conversation - the side that originates overseas. I wonder what kind of information we’d get under this kind of intelligence gathering program invented by the Democrats?
TERRORIST: Peace be upon you, Ali. Is everything in readiness?
ALI: (Unable to record. Subject is on American soil. Agent must get FISA warrant)
TERRORIST: That is wonderful news! When will be the glorious day?
ALI: (Unable to record. Subject is on American soil. Agent must get FISA warrant)
TERRORIST: Excellent! The infidel dogs will die by the thousands! What route will you take to the spot where you will martyr yourself for Allah?
ALI: (Unable to record. Subject is on American soil. Agent must get FISA warrant)
TERRORIST: God willing, your plan will be successful. Farewell, Ali. God is great!
Yes, yes I know. Retroactive warrants are possible under FISA. And a conversation like this could never take place in a million years, right? Right?
Sure hope so. By the way, it may interest you to know that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has told us that all al Qaeda communications are assumed to be monitoried and therefore don’t last longer than 15-30 seconds.
Not very much time to decide whether or not to eavesdrop on innocent Americans exchanging pleasantries with al Qadea thugs.
Just a thought…
There is an awlful lot more information that can be gleaned from the phone call, than the spoken contents. You can know whom is in contact with whom, where they are calling from, what local time they phoned. What other calls were made by the caller and callie, and whom those calls were made to. You fleshout the communications of a suspect and findout not only that he calls his mum, sister and Ali in Pakistan, but who he calls at 4:30 every morning after he gets a call from Pakistan.
Comment by DocMartyn — 12/23/2005 @ 2:18 pm
Let’s suppose a President decides to ignore a different amendment to the Constitution.
This amendment guaranties the right to bear arms and the President based on his fear of losing power suspends it due to disorder in the country. The founding fathers felt this liberty was essential in case a tyrannical government was in place and a remedy was needed. When the President takes this action the people decry his motives, but he insists it is necessary and asks for all arms to be turned in.
A fundamental liberty has now been lost. By suspending the amendment isn’t the constitution suspended as well?
Comment by Jason M. — 12/23/2005 @ 2:58 pm
Jason”
You presuppose the 4th amendment has been suspended which is incorrect. But I suspect you know that. Argument by hyperbole seems to be your SOP.
BTW - working on a post right now about that horrible incident where the FBI accosted that poor young, courageous liberal for taking Mao’s “little book” out of the library.
One thing about that story - it’s a lie:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=118168
OOPS!
Comment by Rick Moran — 12/23/2005 @ 3:01 pm
Of course, this president and even Clinton well knows that even tinkering with the second amendment sets up a huge outcry. Cancelling the second amendment by executive decree would cause America to start resembling Iraq at its very worst within a matter of hours.
But the fourth amendment, well, most second amendment people do not place overseas phonecalls to suspected terrorists or send e-mails to them. If they could, they would be harassing the bad guys or sending hate mail to them. So this is one huge part of the American public that isn’t too concerned about being spied upon should they take up communicating with folks at Al Quaida.
Probably a lot of Americans are pretty indifferent about this type of spying and when it would ever matter in their lives.
Comment by Michael L. Cook — 12/23/2005 @ 9:18 pm
Most liberals haven’t bothered to read the fourth amendment, which is exactly why they’re claiming suspension of same. Protection from unreasonable search is not the same as protection from any search. A very large body of case law from the Supreme Court as well as the appelate courts bear this out. (Katz v. U.S., 1967, U.S. v. U.S. District court, Truong v. U.S. , Hamdi v. Rumsfeld)
And while we’re on the subject, most libs assert that second amendment freedoms apply only to the establishment of a militia. Isn’t that tantamount to “suspending” an amendement? I guess suspending the parts of the Constitution that you don’t like only applies to those on the right.
Comment by trentk269 — 12/24/2005 @ 7:57 am
In response to Jason M.’s post:
I would argue that our Second Amendment rights have already been compromised in the same sense that the NSA’s actions compromise our Fourth Amendment rights.
The assault rifle ban of the Clinton administration restricted the ownership of guns with high capacity magazines on the basis that these were weapons used solely for malicious purposes. “You wouldn’t use an Uzi to hunt deer…” was the argument used by the gun grabbers on the Left. So, this ban restricted the rights of all gun owners in order to prevent bad behavior by a few–those who would aim their legally purchased machine guns, Uzis and the like at unsuspecting citizenry.
In the same sense, one could propose, the NSA is restricting the Fourth amendment rights of a few– those with ties to terrorist groups–in order to prevent bad behavior (bombings, biological warfare) which would pose a threat to the citizenry as a whole.
Comment by Melanie B. — 12/24/2005 @ 9:05 am